When they stop being schematics and accept God is both fully God and fully man.

God is fully God. God is not fully man or even part man, he's not man at all.

Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son and Immortal Word of God (as St Severus of Antioch wrote of him in his hymn which you sing at every Divine Liturgy), is fully God and fully man, having become incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos. Thus we all teach, and thus we all believe, and it's all there for the world to see.

But that wasn't even my point: as I made clear in subsequent posts, my comment was more directed to the idea that "Orthodoxy" is "not Western". Your brand of Orthodoxy is Western through and through, but you (and people who think like you, of which there are many) don't see or care to admit that. Orthodoxy ≠ Eastern. That's all.

I tried to imagine how to make such a schematic that would incorporate "Man" along with "ises" and "is nots", in order to help explain that aspect better, and my head started moving along the lines of the tetrahedron I imagined. My neck hurts.

I tried to imagine how to make such a schematic that would incorporate "Man" along with "ises" and "is nots", in order to help explain that aspect better, and my head started moving along the lines of the tetrahedron I imagined. My neck hurts.

Yes this makes since, I should have said Jesus instead of God. Still, my point being, I would never join the non chalcedonians because they are not in communion with the one and only true Church because of their heretical beliefs, non chalcedonians are not orthodox, just as Roman Catholics aren't Orthodox, how can you be if you are not in the Church, the Church is not divided, there are only those who are divided from the Church. With that said, not liking the western rite is one thing, but being a non Orthodox, thanks for the offer but not in this life time. #Rant

Still, my point being, I would never join the non chalcedonians because they are not in communion with the one and only true Church because of their heretical beliefs, non chalcedonians are not orthodox, just as Roman Catholics aren't Orthodox, how can you be if you are not in the Church, the Church is not divided, there are only those who are divided from the Church.

Yes, there are only those who are divided from the Church, like the Chalcedonians, who left the communion of the one and only true Church (which has remained in God's peace and unity ever since) in order to wed themselves to earthly power, imperial and papal. Since their schism in the fifth century, the Chalcedonians have divided repeatedly, first into so-called Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics, and then divided further: Old Ritualists, Old Calendarists, "the Living Church", etc. on the EO side and Protestantism, Pentecostalism, Jehovah's Witnesses/Mormons, SSPX, SSPV, etc. on the RC side. Schism is the mother of schism, and yours is a great-great-great grandma by now. Hers is a "beautiful" family. #givemeabreak

Really, you'll need to work on your material. I don't mind if you don't agree with us, but you should have better reasons. Not one word of what I described as our faith ought to be disagreeable to you--in fact, I corrected your own statements. But if you're going to curse the truth because "the other guys" believe it, you've got more serious issues.

Still, my point being, I would never join the non chalcedonians because they are not in communion with the one and only true Church because of their heretical beliefs, non chalcedonians are not orthodox, just as Roman Catholics aren't Orthodox, how can you be if you are not in the Church, the Church is not divided, there are only those who are divided from the Church.

Yes, there are only those who are divided from the Church, like the Chalcedonians, who left the communion of the one and only true Church (which has remained in God's peace and unity ever since) in order to wed themselves to earthly power, imperial and papal. Since their schism in the fifth century, the Chalcedonians have divided repeatedly, first into so-called Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics, and then divided further: Old Ritualists, Old Calendarists, "the Living Church", etc. on the EO side and Protestantism, Pentecostalism, Jehovah's Witnesses/Mormons, SSPX, SSPV, etc. on the RC side. Schism is the mother of schism, and yours is a great-great-great grandma by now. Hers is a "beautiful" family. #givemeabreak

Really, you'll need to work on your material. I don't mind if you don't agree with us, but you should have better reasons. Not one word of what I described as our faith ought to be disagreeable to you--in fact, I corrected your own statements. But if you're going to curse the truth because "the other guys" believe it, you've got more serious issues.

The E. Councels were over seen by the Holy Spirit, how can you go against the Holy Spirit? That's my reason.

Still, my point being, I would never join the non chalcedonians because they are not in communion with the one and only true Church because of their heretical beliefs, non chalcedonians are not orthodox, just as Roman Catholics aren't Orthodox, how can you be if you are not in the Church, the Church is not divided, there are only those who are divided from the Church.

Yes, there are only those who are divided from the Church, like the Chalcedonians, who left the communion of the one and only true Church (which has remained in God's peace and unity ever since) in order to wed themselves to earthly power, imperial and papal. Since their schism in the fifth century, the Chalcedonians have divided repeatedly, first into so-called Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics, and then divided further: Old Ritualists, Old Calendarists, "the Living Church", etc. on the EO side and Protestantism, Pentecostalism, Jehovah's Witnesses/Mormons, SSPX, SSPV, etc. on the RC side. Schism is the mother of schism, and yours is a great-great-great grandma by now. Hers is a "beautiful" family. #givemeabreak

Really, you'll need to work on your material. I don't mind if you don't agree with us, but you should have better reasons. Not one word of what I described as our faith ought to be disagreeable to you--in fact, I corrected your own statements. But if you're going to curse the truth because "the other guys" believe it, you've got more serious issues.

The E. Councels were over seen by the Holy Spirit, how can you go against the Holy Spirit? That's my reason.

Peacemaker, not that you're wrong about everything, but "Peacemaker" as a screen name could be one of the worst misnomers ever. So ROCOR's parishes of various rites all agree with the Ecumenical Councils. You agree with this, yes?

Still, my point being, I would never join the non chalcedonians because they are not in communion with the one and only true Church because of their heretical beliefs, non chalcedonians are not orthodox, just as Roman Catholics aren't Orthodox, how can you be if you are not in the Church, the Church is not divided, there are only those who are divided from the Church.

Yes, there are only those who are divided from the Church, like the Chalcedonians, who left the communion of the one and only true Church (which has remained in God's peace and unity ever since) in order to wed themselves to earthly power, imperial and papal. Since their schism in the fifth century, the Chalcedonians have divided repeatedly, first into so-called Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics, and then divided further: Old Ritualists, Old Calendarists, "the Living Church", etc. on the EO side and Protestantism, Pentecostalism, Jehovah's Witnesses/Mormons, SSPX, SSPV, etc. on the RC side. Schism is the mother of schism, and yours is a great-great-great grandma by now. Hers is a "beautiful" family. #givemeabreak

Really, you'll need to work on your material. I don't mind if you don't agree with us, but you should have better reasons. Not one word of what I described as our faith ought to be disagreeable to you--in fact, I corrected your own statements. But if you're going to curse the truth because "the other guys" believe it, you've got more serious issues.

The E. Councels were over seen by the Holy Spirit, how can you go against the Holy Spirit? That's my reason.

Peacemaker, not that you're wrong about everything, but "Peacemaker" as a screen name could be one of the worst misnomers ever.

Considering that the Peacemaker was one of the most popular guns in history, perhaps it is quite apt.

Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Still, my point being, I would never join the non chalcedonians because they are not in communion with the one and only true Church because of their heretical beliefs, non chalcedonians are not orthodox, just as Roman Catholics aren't Orthodox, how can you be if you are not in the Church, the Church is not divided, there are only those who are divided from the Church.

Yes, there are only those who are divided from the Church, like the Chalcedonians, who left the communion of the one and only true Church (which has remained in God's peace and unity ever since) in order to wed themselves to earthly power, imperial and papal. Since their schism in the fifth century, the Chalcedonians have divided repeatedly, first into so-called Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics, and then divided further: Old Ritualists, Old Calendarists, "the Living Church", etc. on the EO side and Protestantism, Pentecostalism, Jehovah's Witnesses/Mormons, SSPX, SSPV, etc. on the RC side. Schism is the mother of schism, and yours is a great-great-great grandma by now. Hers is a "beautiful" family. #givemeabreak

Really, you'll need to work on your material. I don't mind if you don't agree with us, but you should have better reasons. Not one word of what I described as our faith ought to be disagreeable to you--in fact, I corrected your own statements. But if you're going to curse the truth because "the other guys" believe it, you've got more serious issues.

The E. Councels were over seen by the Holy Spirit, how can you go against the Holy Spirit? That's my reason.

Peacemaker, not that you're wrong about everything, but "Peacemaker" as a screen name could be one of the worst misnomers ever. So ROCOR's parishes of various rites all agree with the Ecumenical Councils. You agree with this, yes?

This is very unfortunate, especially for the WR. That said, having met Met. Hilarion, I believe HE would only do what HE believes would be right in the eyes of God.

Yet considering all the troubles which various Orthodox jurisdictions have faced while missioning in the West and receiving converts, either in large number or individually, it seems to me as though novices to the Faith are all too often promoted too quickly. While I believe that the orders of those validly ordained with apostolic succession should be recognised when they convert, I believe they should be required to attend some extra form of spiritual retreat before they are received or perhaps made to serve as an assistant priest for a couple of years until the receiving Church can have some greater form of reassurance that the new convert will remain faithful.

Would not a valid option be, if they ordained them anyway, is to place them under an experienced priest for several years before sending them out on their own. This could effectively double the priesthood while at the same time allowing for sufficient training. I always thought it would be better for a new priest to work with an experienced one for a number of years anyway.

Agreed. Despite the need for more priests, I think it would be best if two priests (one experienced, one in training) served each major parish and that only experienced priests serve small/mission parishes to ensure their safety and stability.

Logged

...because I was not with you when the Lord came aforetime....because I am blind and yet I see.

If by "experienced" you mean retired, but willing to assist with a small parish, that is a great situation. But any experienced Priests with children or nearing retirement cannot subsist on what most small missions pay them.

This is very unfortunate, especially for the WR. That said, having met Met. Hilarion, I believe HE would only do what HE believes would be right in the eyes of God.

Yet considering all the troubles which various Orthodox jurisdictions have faced while missioning in the West and receiving converts, either in large number or individually, it seems to me as though novices to the Faith are all too often promoted too quickly. While I believe that the orders of those validly ordained with apostolic succession should be recognised when they convert, I believe they should be required to attend some extra form of spiritual retreat before they are received or perhaps made to serve as an assistant priest for a couple of years until the receiving Church can have some greater form of reassurance that the new convert will remain faithful.

Would not a valid option be, if they ordained them anyway, is to place them under an experienced priest for several years before sending them out on their own. This could effectively double the priesthood while at the same time allowing for sufficient training. I always thought it would be better for a new priest to work with an experienced one for a number of years anyway.

Agreed. Despite the need for more priests, I think it would be best if two priests (one experienced, one in training) served each major parish and that only experienced priests serve small/mission parishes to ensure their safety and stability.

Either that, or have one priest and one deacon. If the deacon could be ordained a priest eventually, the priest would train him on the job. If not, the permanent deacon would then be the priest's assistant. With a priest, deacon, and subdeacon available at each parish, there would be fewer problems of succession, but even the readers and subdeacons would have to be vetted, to ensure that they would be able to succeed the priest and deacon if and when needed.

This is very unfortunate, especially for the WR. That said, having met Met. Hilarion, I believe HE would only do what HE believes would be right in the eyes of God.

Yet considering all the troubles which various Orthodox jurisdictions have faced while missioning in the West and receiving converts, either in large number or individually, it seems to me as though novices to the Faith are all too often promoted too quickly. While I believe that the orders of those validly ordained with apostolic succession should be recognised when they convert, I believe they should be required to attend some extra form of spiritual retreat before they are received or perhaps made to serve as an assistant priest for a couple of years until the receiving Church can have some greater form of reassurance that the new convert will remain faithful.

Would not a valid option be, if they ordained them anyway, is to place them under an experienced priest for several years before sending them out on their own. This could effectively double the priesthood while at the same time allowing for sufficient training. I always thought it would be better for a new priest to work with an experienced one for a number of years anyway.

Agreed. Despite the need for more priests, I think it would be best if two priests (one experienced, one in training) served each major parish and that only experienced priests serve small/mission parishes to ensure their safety and stability.

Either that, or have one priest and one deacon. If the deacon could be ordained a priest eventually, the priest would train him on the job. If not, the permanent deacon would then be the priest's assistant. With a priest, deacon, and subdeacon available at each parish, there would be fewer problems of succession, but even the readers and subdeacons would have to be vetted, to ensure that they would be able to succeed the priest and deacon if and when needed.

You have to trust your bishop' s discernment. I know plenty of experienced priests and deacons who shouldn't be within a mile of a neophyte!